Mba v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC et al

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Gopal Mba's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Perez Davis is DENIED. [ECF No. 12 ] IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Gopal Mbas claims against Defendant Perez Davis ar e DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Swift Transportation Company of Arizona, LLC's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED. This matter is STAYED pending arbitration. [ECF No. 8 ] IT IS FUR THER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this cause of action for statistical purposes only, subject to reopening upon notice by the parties upon the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. An appropriate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 11/14/2023. (TMT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
GOPAL MBA,
Plaintiff,
v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
OF ARIZONA, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:23-CV-879 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Gopal Mba’s Motion for Additional Time to
Serve Defendant Perez Davis. (ECF No. 12). Defendant Swift Transportation Company of
Arizona, LLC (“Swift”) opposes the motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
Plaintiff’s Motion for Additional Time to Serve Defendant Davis. The Court will also grant
Swift’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings, which Plaintiff does not oppose.
(ECF No. 8).
On June 9, 2023, Plaintiff filed a petition against Swift Transportation Company of
Arizona, LLC and Perez Davis in state court. On July 13, 2023, Swift removed the cause of action
to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. At the time of
removal, there was no evidence in the record that Defendant Davis had been served. On October
16, 2023, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to promptly serve Defendant Davis, and file
proof of such service by November 6, 2023. (ECF No. 11). The order specifically provided that
“[f]ailure to comply with Rule 4(m) and this Order will result in the dismissal without prejudice
of the claims against Defendant Perez Davis” (Id.).

Plaintiff did not obtain service on Defendant Davis, but rather he filed a motion for
extension of time to serve Defendant Davis, the motion at bar. In his motion, Plaintiff states, “At
the time of filing, Plaintiff held service on Defendant Perez Davis due to insufficient information.
Our investigation is ongoing, and we have not been able to serve Defendant Perez Davis.” (ECF
No. 12 at 1). No other specifics are provided.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), “If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the
complaint is filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss
the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified
time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The Court may extend the time for service for an appropriate time
period for good cause shown. Id. “In determining whether good cause exists, the district court
must focus primarily ‘on the plaintiff's reasons for not complying with the time limit in the first
place.’” Kurka v. Iowa Cnty., Iowa, 628 F.3d 953, 958 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting Boley v. Kaymark,
123 F.3d 756, 758 (3d Cir. 1997)).
It has been 123 days since this case was removed to this Court, and 157 days since Plaintiff
filed his Petition. In moving for an extension of the service deadline, Plaintiff has neither
articulated what efforts he has made to obtain service up to this point, nor explained what
additional information he needs to locate and serve Defendant Davis. In short, Plaintiff has failed
to show that he has attempted service in good faith, and that there is a reasonable basis for his
noncompliance with the service deadline. Adams v. AlliedSignal Gen. Aviation Avionics, 74
F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 1996). Therefore, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to show good cause
to extend the service deadline of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Id.
Having failed to obtain proper service on Defendant Davis as Plaintiff was ordered to do, the Court
dismisses Plaintiff’s claims against this defendant without prejudice.

2

Also before the Court is Swift’s Moton to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings.
(ECF No. 8). In his response to Swift’s Motion, Plaintiff states that he does not oppose Swift’s
motion to compel arbitration and requests the Court enter an Order granting the Motion. The
motion being unopposed and with consent, the Court grants Swift’s Motion to Compel Arbitration
and stay these proceedings.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff Gopal Mba’s Motion for Extension of Time to
Serve Defendant Perez Davis is DENIED. [ECF No. 12]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Gopal Mba’s claims against Defendant Perez
Davis are DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Swift Transportation Company of Arizona,
LLC’s Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings is GRANTED.

This matter is

STAYED pending arbitration. [ECF No. 8]
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this
cause of action for statistical purposes only, subject to reopening upon notice by the parties upon
the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings.
An appropriate Order of Partial Dismissal will accompany this Memorandum and Order.

__________________________________
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 14th day of November, 2023.

3